Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The “Reciprocal Conceal Carry” Act. S. 845

Discussion in 'Legal' started by wyofool, Jun 11, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. wyofool

    wyofool Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    Messages:
    66
    Location:
    Laramie
    A bill in the Senate, S. 845, co-sponsored by Senator John Thune (R-SD) and Senator David Vitter (R-LA), allows for reciprocity among all the states that currently allow citizens to lawfully carry a concealed firearm.
     
  2. Oyeboten

    Oyeboten Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2008
    Messages:
    3,696
    Sounds good...


    I believe in State's Rights, definitely.

    But given that Federal interest in firearms Constitutionally supercedes or co-exists anyway, I see no harm in the States being enouraged to recognise one-another in reasonable reciprocal courtesys which directly and positively effect their Citizens.


    If States recognise one-another's issuance of Driver's Licenses, then it stands to reason, they ought to recognise one-anothers in-effect, CCW Licenses also.
     
  3. oron

    oron Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2009
    Messages:
    33
    Location:
    Central US
    the look of a few Dem's faces,
    ca. nyc. mass.
    If it passed.
    would be pricless.
     
  4. RoostRider

    RoostRider Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2008
    Messages:
    670
    How would that change anything? The states are already "allowed" to have reciprocity.

    Would this fall in as an interstate commerce issue thereby making Federal Jurisdiction constitutional and thus forcing states to have reciprocity? In which case, why would it stop at only the states that currently allow CCW permits?... which they all do in one way or another don't they?

    Kind of like a DL, which has to be honored in all states....
     
  5. metallic

    metallic Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2004
    Messages:
    225
    Location:
    Shreveport, LA
    That's reason enough for me to hope it passes. Wouldn't hold my breath though.
     
  6. Cougfan2

    Cougfan2 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,731
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    I'm prepared to get Flamed here, but I don't like the idea of the Feds having anything to do with state CCW laws. If the Fed controls the law, they can also pass amendments to weaken it or otherwise encumber concealed carry. Although still difficult, it's much easier to fight these battles at the state level than at the federal level.

    Call me paranoid, but the Fed has too much power over my individual liberty now. I don't relish the idea of giving them any more.

    Donning Flame Retardant Suit!!!
     
  7. AirForceShooter

    AirForceShooter Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    Messages:
    2,758
    Location:
    Central Florida
    +1 for Cougfan

    See? No flames

    AFS
     
  8. Hungry Seagull

    Hungry Seagull member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,167
    Supermajority of states, I think 36 states can bypass and limit federal power and force all states to honor each others CCW licenses nationwide.

    I say EXCELLENT! They do it already with CDL's, Pilot licenses and drivers licenses and some other trades, why not CCW's too.

    I too would like to watch what happens to NY, Cali and Illinios if something like this becomes law nationwide.
     
  9. Smithiac

    Smithiac Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    Messages:
    189
    NO!!! Illinois does not allow Concealed Carry in anyway shape or form. And to my knowledge Wisconsin is th only other state where concealed carry is illegal.
     
  10. RoostRider

    RoostRider Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2008
    Messages:
    670
    <EDIT- to add relevance>
    I'm not for or against the Feds taking control of things I have no idea about, such as this. The Feds clearly have a place in at very least some interstate issues, according to SCOTUS and most common beliefs.... and as I believe the founding fathers intended.

    Can someone answer my first question- How would that change anything? The states are already "allowed" to have reciprocity.
    <END EDIT>

    Less relevant-

    You can't get a concealed carry license under any circumstances in WI or IL?

    That just seems irresponsible.... what about people with areal demonstrative reasons for needing a firearm.... do they allow open carry permits? (clearly for armed guards I would assume, but I mean for Joe Citizen)
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2009
  11. verdun59

    verdun59 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    479
    Location:
    Virginia or South Carolina
    I'm with Cougfan2. No feds......
     
  12. MT GUNNY

    MT GUNNY Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2006
    Messages:
    1,450
    Location:
    Kalispell MT
    If this passes would California, Washington DC, and so on, have to accept my MT, CCP? Just like my Drivers license.
    In a Sence It would Force Anti States to have CC Laws!
     
  13. jbrown50

    jbrown50 Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Messages:
    615
    Location:
    DC
    I also agree with Cougfan2. There's always a danger that you could open a can of worms, BUT, you can bet that if the antis thought they could get away with it they would pass a federal law that would ban reciprocity between the states and they wouldn't need a precedent to do it.

    I do think the Feds could help though by declaring that concealed carry permits are to be recognized under Full Faith and Credit protection that is guaranteed in Article IV Section 1 of the Constitution. Senator David Vitter (R-LA) tried this last year with HR 980.


    http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=363458
     
  14. TAB

    TAB Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    Messages:
    2,475
    anyway you slice it, this is a bad bill.

    It will not help the CCW cuase, it will hurt it.
     
  15. Frog48

    Frog48 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2006
    Messages:
    2,201
    Location:
    Somewhere down in Texas
    Exactly. It may start out as a great thing, but once the fed gets their foot in the door, theres no telling what will happen later down the road. "Slippery slope" comes to mind.
     
  16. ChaoSS

    ChaoSS Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,111
    So I want to know if this would force Illinois to accept concealed carry permits from other states. I also wonder if this would mean that Vermont would start issuing permits, the way I believe Alaska does.
     
  17. pbearperry

    pbearperry Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2007
    Messages:
    864
    Location:
    The Peoples Republic of Massachusetts
    So let me understand this.Some folks don't like the bill because ifit passes we can carry in all 50 states?
    Or it's just that the Feds are getting their hands into it?
     
  18. ConstitutionCowboy

    ConstitutionCowboy member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,230
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    If Congress wants to clear the way for us to carry our arms state-to-state, concealed or otherwise, it has the power to enforce the Second Amendment through Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Congress can tell the several states to cease and desist with any and all laws that conflict with the provisions of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    I think Congress ought to start with sanctions. Close military bases in states that infringe upon our RKBA. Neglect interstate highways where they pass through infringing states. Close most of the post offices. Call up the militia to arrest all state officials and hold those errant state governments in contempt of the Constitution until such time those state governments abolish all infringing laws.

    That's the kind of Union interference into the affairs of the several states I could get behind.

    There are similar things going on right now with some of the states expressing their desire to end federal mandates and other misprisions in areas where the Union has failed to abide the Tenth Amendment, so I think it is only right that the Union take command of the several states where it has the constitutional power to protect our rights. Isn't that the sort of thing that's supposed to happen with our separation and balance of powers?

    Both the several states and the Union need to kick each other's arses where appropriate and stay out of each other's affairs as delineated in the Constitution. That's the only way we'll ever see our rights honored by either level of government. That's the only way We the People will benefit.

    Woody
     
  19. ConstitutionCowboy

    ConstitutionCowboy member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,230
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    pbearperry,

    It's that the Feds will get their hands into it in a way they shouldn't. It would be de facto recognition by Congress that the several state legislatures can regulate the keeping and bearing of arms. The goal of all these cases being brought before the Supreme Court is to ERADICATE these infringing laws. A bill such as this one would throw a monkey wrench into the works.

    I would question the veracity of those in Congress who proposed and those who cosponsor this bill and any other such bills.

    Woody
     
  20. pbearperry

    pbearperry Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2007
    Messages:
    864
    Location:
    The Peoples Republic of Massachusetts
    So because of mistrust of the Federal Govt. you would rather see this bill fail instead of being able to carry legally in all 50 states?There is no other way this will ever happen.All 50 states will never all agree,plain and simple.Prime example,Mass. recognizes no other states licenses to carry,and probably never will.
     
  21. blakeci

    blakeci Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Messages:
    155
    Location:
    Clayton, NC USA
    This bill would not allow carry in all 50 states, it would only have all the states that have CC to recognize CWP's from other states. In other words, If you can legally carry in North Carolina and you are traveling in another state that allows its citizens to carry, then you're CWP is legal there also.
     
  22. Blackbeard

    Blackbeard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,722
    Location:
    Behind the Daley Curtain (IL)
    I'd like to see a bill that forces states to recognize other states' gay marriages, and also forces them to recognize CCW licenses. I'd like to see people argue how only half of that should apply.

    P.S. We could call it the "Marry-Carry Act"
     
  23. ConstitutionCowboy

    ConstitutionCowboy member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,230
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    I didn't say "mistrust". I said it would be de facto recognition by the Feds that the states may regulate the keeping and bearing of arms(albeit unconstitutional). The reason I pointed that out is because the deeper and deeper government gets into our rights, the more and more difficult it will be to get them out.

    Look beyond "reciprocity" to the uninfringed right to keep and bear arms. That is how it used to be, how it should be, and how it can be by simply removing the unconstitutional laws.



    Hence, the need to remove the unconstitutional laws.

    Massachusetts wasn't always as bad as it is vis-a-vis arms. When I was growing up there in Massachusetts, It was quite normal to see kids, 14 years old and up, walking down the street during hunting season with their dad's shotgun. We'd set up a table and shoot my Dad's old trap door 45-70 at some old abandoned greenhouse foundations. No one got shot, either.

    Woody
     
  24. Ragnar Danneskjold

    Ragnar Danneskjold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    3,703
    Location:
    Arlington, Republic of Texas
    I agree with Cougfan as well. It reminds me of a quote that seems applicable, though I don't know where it's from.

    "Do not judge legislation based on the good it will do when properly administered. Instead, always judge legislation on the harm it will cause when improperly administered"

    If we give the feds authority over concealed carry in hopes that it will loosen restrictions for a few states, we also give them the authority to tighten restrictions for all states, or ban it completely.
     
  25. bensdad

    bensdad Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,281
    Location:
    Minnesota
    I'm with the "against" crowd (just like I was the last time this topic came up). Once the feds get involved, we'll have: 1) fingerprinting for the permit, 2) mandatory conceal (no oc), 3) standardized course requirements for the permit, 4) no carry where alcohol is served, 5) no carry in churches, 6) no carry in large venues, 6) bigger fee for the permit, 7) a whole new (massive) branch of the BATFE, 8) gun "safe function" check (like Michigan used to have), 8) only carry guns listed on your permit, 9) make up a silly rule the feds would dream up and insert it here.

    This looks and feels good at first glance. They're smiling at us while they steal our wallets and strip our rights.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page